Ballistic Recovery System

[dubster]

Hi all,


Am after some advice with regards to the recording of which aircraft are fitted with BRS. Am a firefighter in the UK and as part of our normal training we cover among many things accidents involving light aircraft.As we have learned more and more GA aircraft have these systems fitted so it could be quite handy to know what we could be turning upto. So is there a register of sorts?, or do we have to rely on looking for the little stickers??? Any help is appreciated.
Thanks.
Nick.

[mad_jock]

In the grandscale of things they are not that common and if you do get called to an incident involving one away from the airport its most likely will have been fired already.

SO far they have only been fitted I think to low wing type aircraft so if it has the wing on the top of the aircraft it won't have one.

If it has two engines again it won't have one.

If its made out of metal again it won't have one.

If it low wing made out of fiberglass looking stuff look for the sticker it should have a red box round the dangerous bit.

[A and C]

All Cirrus aircraft have BRS.

Some Sport Crusers

A number of microlights.

From a firefighting point of view there is the danger from fire cooking off the truly impressive rocket and the danger of the rocket becoming almost actuated by the disruption of the structure in an accident being activated when rescue is attempted by further disruption due to cutting into the structure.

[lederhosen]

They are definitely not just restricted to low wing monoplanes. They have been fitted to Cessnas for example. But increasingly they are to be found on homebuilts and particularly ultralights. There are even ultralight gliders with them (pipistrel for example). They usually have clear warning signs and safety pins for disarming which is important to know when attending a crash.

[Jonzarno]

Here is a link to a Cirrus video for first responders.

The username is cirrus and the password CAPS

Cirrus Advisory Guide for First Responders Login Page (http://firstresponder.cirrusaircraft.com)

[nonsense]

Try cirrus (all lower case) and CAPS (all upper case).

[Jonzarno]

Thanks for the correction: you're quite right!

[dubster]

Guys,
Thanks for the speedy replies. Have just watched the cirrus clip,very usefull will be showing to the rest of my shift over the next couple of days.
So the bottom line is treat all light aircraft,including homebuilds and microlites as if they have a system until we can confirm it dosent. Again thanks for your help ,knew the pprune community would have the answers.
Safe flying.
Nick.

[The Fenland Flyer]

Our Ikarus C-42 has one and all new C-42Bs have them as standard.

[Jan Olieslagers]

...which may have to do with them being mandatory (on microlights) in the C42's country of origin.

[ChickenHouse]

As far as I understood, BRS is mandatory for EASA registered microlights. Thene there are the Cirrus fractions and the retrofitted ones - these usually have the mentioned little stickers. At almost all certified old machines it should be easy to rescue people, as there are no BRS. The number of retrofitted Cessna for example is homeopathic.

Experimentals may be a problem, but I would assume they have the stickers.

As a fireman myself I can only report on our training session back when I was in Europe. There were only 3 or 4 manufacturers of BRS than, and we called them up for training material - which they provided to us to learn how to handle such blood things. Even one of them sent an instructor to give lessons for first steps before the bomb squat arrives to get rid of the BRS.

[Jan Olieslagers]

BRS is mandatory for EASA registered microlights.

Forget it. EASA has nothing to do with microlights, they remain under national rulings. AFAIK Germany is the only European country to make a BRS mandatory. Wouldn't be surprised about Austria and Switzerland, though, perhaps even Italy for the "ULM Avanzato" subcategory but I don't think so.

[mad_jock]

before the bomb squat arrives to get rid of the BRS.

going back to my previous life....

Wonder how the hell they would deal with it.

You could pig stick it I suppose...

blow it in situe...

Suppose you could pull it... but then that would disrupt the crash site.

Or do they do put a point charge on and drill it?

[Genghis the Engineer]

Germany mandates them, they're variably permitted across the rest of Europe. They've been legal in the UK on microlights since 1998, but adoption hasn't been huge. They've become more popular since the UK microlight rules were changed to add 22.5kg to the permitted MTOW with a BRS carried.

Types most likely to have them in the UK are the Cirrus family, C42, CT, but there are others, even flexwings. There are mods for Cessnas as well.

You could potentially fit one to a light twin, but I don't think that anybody actually has.

I have seen them fitted "illegally" to UK registered aircraft as well, with no formal modification approval. I'm past being a policeman, but that does mean that there are aeroplanes flying in this country with explosive devices fitted which have never been through any form of safety approval system. I'm sure that'd worry me if I was a fireman !

Most usually look for a cylinder like this...

http://www.fpna.com/images/brs_01.jpg

Or a marking on the outside of the aircraft, usually a large triangle, showing the rocket exit point. See page 21 of this document (http://documents.flightdesignusa.com/BRS%20install%20CTLS.pdf).

G

[Mach Jump]

Suppose you could pull it... but then that would disrupt the crash site.

Or do they do put a point charge on and drill it?

..., or just put the safety pin back in? ;)


MJ:ok:

[mad_jock]

that would be quite a silly thing to do with an explosive device that had just gone through a crash.

You could put it back in but you couldn't presume that it would render it safe.

[Mach Jump]

You could put it back in but you couldn't presume that it would render it safe

A fair comment, MJ.

So I wonder what the 'experts' do to make a BRS safe after a crash, short of the rather drastic 'IED' type solutions you suggest?


MJ:ok:

[Genghis the Engineer]

Not all systems have a pin. Many microlight systems use a "one-shot" twist system that breaks some cable ties. A few older systems just have a single pull-handle.

Plus, post-crash, I'd not trust the pin to keep it safe anyhow given likely internal distortions to the system and operating cable.

I am not a rescue expert, but I wrote the original safety regs or ballistic chutes in the UK, and have signed a number of systems off as a CAA design signatory, which probably makes me an expert in something.

The best you can do, in my opinion, is identify the drogue / rocket exit route, and keep everybody well out of the way of it during the rescue and subsequently cut it out of the aircraft working carefully to the sides of the rocket and find an explosives expert to take it away for you and do whatever explosives experts do to things like that.

G

[mad_jock]

Its basically a large bore firearm. And the integrity of the barrell wouldn't be known. So if it did fire and was bent the thing would explode and throw shrapenel everywhere.

Water disrupter (pig stick) wouldn't get through the metal. You wouldn't want to handle it. So i reckon they would point charge it.

[Mach Jump]

I thought that there may be something useful on the BRS Aerospace website.

BRS Aerospace (http://www.brsparachutes.com/default.aspx)

But, unfortunately the 'Safety' section won't open. :(


MJ:ok:

Ps. It's not just the rocket motor that's dangerous. If you happen to be standing astride one of the aircraft support cables, (Ie. one foot inside, one foot outside the cockpit) when it fires, you will get a nasty surprise! :eek:

[mad_jock]

First Responders (http://www.brsparachutes.com/first_responders.aspx)

Try that

[Crash one]

No experience with BRS but if this is a device similar to a military ejector seat, fitting the safety pin should stop the firing mechanism but it won't stop the thing cooking off in a fire.

[Mach Jump]

Thanks MJ. Very informative. :)

Genghis: It's a worry that people are fitting these without any approval, and I assume without any warning signs either! :eek:

MJ:ok:

[Aubrey.]

If its made out of metal again it won't have one.

Wrong, we've recently bought an EV97 SL Eurostar which is an all aluminium microlight and is fitted with a BRS. It's covered by a metal panel inset just behind the engine, in front of the canopy and features open drilled holes with small tabs so the panel will easily pop out on deployment. It also has the red warning triangle as mentioned previously. Our C42Bs have got BRS too. Very smart system!

[Genghis the Engineer]

Thanks MJ. Very informative. :)

Genghis: It's a worry that people are fitting these without any approval, and I assume without any warning signs either! :eek:

MJ:ok:

Yep! I know of one such tucked in a hangar otherwise containing a couple of 146s at an airfield somewhere in the Midlands.

With the new single seat deregulation it gets even more fun as any requirement to meet any safety standards at all has been removed for all single seaters - or increasingly older 2 seaters through simply removing the second seat.

G

[dubster]

Again thanks for all the replies,seems to have opened a whole can of worms as to the legality of some of the retro fitted systems. Hopefully with the law of averages i wont encounter any............................

[ChickenHouse]

Forget it. EASA has nothing to do with microlights, they remain under national rulings. AFAIK Germany is the only European country to make a BRS mandatory. Wouldn't be surprised about Austria and Switzerland, though, perhaps even Italy for the "ULM Avanzato" subcategory but I don't think so.

Last time I had a look at it they were trying to depress everybody under common regulations. Did they fail to grab the last piece of freedom now? That would be a little success story in all that mud.

[LightningBoots]

The C42 chute fires through the little hatch on the top rear fuselage, right behind the wing. They all have that hatch, so it doesn't help you identifying which have a BRS and which don't - only the stickers or the handle in the cockpit will clue you in to that.

Ours is a Junkers Magnum - Airmasters- Aircraft Maintenance & Rotax qualified service engineer (http://www.air-masters.co.uk/junkers.htm) - rather than all being contained in a 'pod' there's a small rocket in the back (quite near the fuel tank) and a separate big black bag containing the chute.

[mad_jock]

Its interesting to me that there are alot more of these things about than i presumed.

Now why does no other type seem to use them but cirrus is in the news all the time doing a red handle let down?

[Genghis the Engineer]

Its interesting to me that there are alot more of these things about than i presumed.

Now why does no other type seem to use them but cirrus is in the news all the time doing a red handle let down?

There are several theories to this, including:-

(1) Cirusses are prone to getting in trouble

(2) Cirusses are generally flown by people with far less flying ability than they think they have.

(3) Cirus mandate a 10 hour training course for all new pilots where it's beaten into them that the moment anything goes wrong (inadvertant flight into IMC, inadvertant spin, engine failure....) they should pull the handle.


I tend to think that (1) is a red herring as whilst I've never flown one myself, nothing I've heard from high ability pilots who have flown the type has suggested to me that there's anything wrong with the aeroplane.

G

[flybymike]

I suppose another reason might be that there are far more Cirrus with them fitted which are flying around on a day to day basis than any other single type.

[mad_jock]

Yep about numbers but i can't remembrr any other types in the news which i put down to them not being common.

But it appears that there are a few more than rockhorse poo

[Big Pistons Forever]

Its interesting to me that there are alot more of these things about than i presumed.

Now why does no other type seem to use them but cirrus is in the news all the time doing a red handle let down?

Cirrus :hmm:...that would be the type that now has a fatal accident rate half that of any comparable type :ok:.

But I guess it is so much better to punish pilots and their passengers with a death sentence even though a aircraft parachute could have saved everybody :=



(3) Cirus mandate a 10 hour training course for all new pilots where it's beaten into them that the moment anything goes wrong (inadvertant flight into IMC, inadvertant spin, engine failure....) they should pull the handle.



G

I would suggest that your statement is a significant misrepresentation of the facts. The program teaches pilots to consider using the CAP's system in various scenarios. It is IMO the best type training program out their because it is structured around typical flight profiles, requires the pilot practice real world decision making skills and is evidence based.

[mad_jock]

That as well maybe.

Maybe they should market it as a method of avoiding Darwin working.

Why is there no reports of other types or i might add crashes where its reported the system wasn't used.

[Jan Olieslagers]

Ah, finally, here's the next round of pro/con. I was beginning to fear this place was no longer its own true self. Go for it guys! Never mind the original question! All occasions and every opportunity must do, to repeat the same arguments over and over again!

</sarcasm>

[mad_jock]

This isn't a pro con debate its more of why is one group doing red handle let downs and the other aren't.

[Jonzarno]

Oh gawd, not again. Please.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I think that the original question got answers.

BPF - I've not done the course, but every thread I've seen on here or Flyer about the Cirrus courses has had Cirrus pilots saying that the default action being taught is to pull the handle in most cases.

I plan to do the course one of these days, simply because the aeroplane fascinates me. But the very high accident rate is a matter of record, from GASCo's website...

The fatal accident rate of the Cirrus type has dropped to 1.01 per 100,000 hours, which is slightly less than the US average of 1.2. However, ten years ago in 2004 the Cirrus rate was about twice the US average at 2.6 per 100,000 hours. Two reasons are cited for the higher rate: firstly that it was a new aeroplane with which pilots were unfamiliar and secondly that this is a type used more for serious personal transport rather than pure recreational flying. These pilots are flying complex missions for long distances, a lot of weather and a lot of different types of terrain. But it’s still the same type of pilot who would normally fly around the traffic pattern so it’s a more challenging mission, argue the makers.

And from Avweb (http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Cirrus_Safety_Record_Average_205914-1.html) three years ago:-

Cirrus aircraft finished lower when fatal rate is considered. The Cirrus combined rate (SR20 and SR22) is 1.6, compared to the GA average of 1.2/100,000. Diamond's DA40 has the lowest fatal rate at .35, followed by the Cessna 172 at .45, the Diamond DA42 at .54 and the Cessna 182 at .69. Cessna's Corvalis line, which began life as the Columbia, has a fatal rate of 1.0, a bit less than the GA average of 1.2. The Columbia/Corvalis models are essentially similar in construction and performance to the Cirrus SR22, but without the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS).



For an extremely expensive aeroplane, mostly flying long trips - and thus less take-offs and landings (where most accidents occur) than the background fleet, loaded with what are supposed to be safety features, where the background population of aeroplanes are much older and more basic, that really doesn't look good does it when the C182 and DA42 are both showing much better safety records.

Half the fatality rate of the background fleet is, I'm afraid, just not true. It has a higher fatality rate than much older aeroplanes, despite far more safety features. Something's wrong somewhere.

G

[mad_jock]

For an extremely expensive aeroplane, mostly flying long trips - and thus less take-offs and landings (where most accidents occur) than the background fleet, loaded with what are supposed to be safety features, where the background population of aeroplanes are much older and more basic, that really doesn't look good does it.


This has been my feeling from the start.

There is a stink about it, quite what is smelling I don't know.

But there is definitely a nasty smell.

The religious heckling and trying to quash any talk on the subject is just that a cult formation who are blind to any negative talk.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I have shared a beer with one or two Cirrus company test pilots at conferences - they were military trained, so did know what they were doing. Their general view on the aeroplane was that it was neither better nor worse than any other similar performance aeroplane in terms of complexity, workload, or handling.

Which suggests that it has something to do with the pilot profile. Remember the old Bonanza that used to be called the "Doctor and Lawyer killer" - now that did have issues, but was still basically safe operated within the envelope - I do wonder if there's some similarities there.

I still want to do the course, even if I never fly a Cirrus again - simply from professional interest.

G

[The Fenland Flyer]

I wouldn't pull the 'chute if I had an engine failure in the C-42, like most microlights it's relatively easy to put in a field.

However if I was flying a Cirrus I would pull: It lands at twice the speed of a C-42 so a bigger field is needed and less room for error. Also landing at motorway speeds in a boggy field or one with tall crops is going to be nasty, and so I would assume a better outcome descending under canopy.

Our C-42 BRS has not been tested on type, it's experimental and what was done by test pilots in the Cirrus will be done by the first C-42 pilot to deploy one.

[Genghis the Engineer]

The BRS in the Cirrus had to be tested, as it was used as the means of complying with the regulations which required a reliable spin recovery. Unlike the Cirrus, the C42 has been shown to consistently recover from a spin.

I've no issue with having a BRS - I've flown with both that and ejector seats. However, in all cases I'd make a rational decision based upon the circumstances - not an automatic handle pull, whatever I was in.

G

[Big Pistons Forever]

Genghis

The AvWeb article you quoted is 3 years old. The latest article from AvWeb quotes a 2014 accident rate of .056/100,000. That is where my comment of half the rate of comparable aircraft came from.

While the Cirrus used to have a higher than expected accident rate, there is no question that it has been dramatically reduced. The only think that has changed is the training program so it seems likely that this has contributed to the better stats. In any case there has been a very high correlation between those who have not taken one of the formal courses and who have had an accident.

I find it discouraging that many posters seem to think that it is preferable for a pilot who screws up to die, rather than have a last resort to save themselves.

My bottom line is simple. If I had a choice between 2 SEP,s to fly, one with a chute and one without, I would take the one with a chute.

[Genghis the Engineer]

So would I - if you don't have it, you don't have the option.

Could you link to the new article? Presumably your figure is 0.56/100,000 not 0.056? I don't think mind you that the population size is so large that you can just take one year as meaning anything - normally I'd say that 10 years is a reasonable minimum period for sensible statistical analysis, maybe 5 for a very large population. It's a bit like a warm summer being taken as evidence that there's no global warming! So I would take anything from a single year as a glitch, whether it's very good or very bad.

Of course more good training makes for safer pilots! And that Cirrus are forcing their customers to accept that extra training is no bad thing.

G

[Jonzarno]

Unlike the Cirrus, the C42 has been shown to consistently recover from a spin.


As has been posted here repeatedly, when the SR2X underwent EASA certification it did demonstrate ability to recover from a full program of spins.

At the time of the original FAA certification, the chute was submitted as an equivalent to spin recovery, not as an alternative because spin recovery was impossible, obviously it isn't. One reason was the fact that spin recovery is no longer part of the PPL syllabus.

I've no issue with having a BRS - I've flown with both that and ejector seats. However, in all cases I'd make a rational decision based upon the circumstances - not an automatic handle pull, whatever I was in.

Your attitude to using CAPS mirrors exactly the philosophy taught by CSIPs and at CPPPs.

The principles are very simple:

If you have time to fix the problem, by all means do so, but don't wait until it's too late. Hence: pull early.

If you aren't sure you have a safe landing made, pull before it's too late. Better to pull if maybe you could have made it than not to pull if maybe you couldn't. Hence: pull often.

If anyone wants to bet their life on that philosophy being wrong: feel free. Far too many have already. And lost.

FWIW, I have personally been in an emergency in which CAPS was an option I seriously considered. What happened was that the alternate air flapper valve on my aircraft broke just after takeoff leaving me with serioulsy reduced power.

In accordance with the COPA philosophy, I immediately considered CAPS but was below 400 ft but with enough power to keep climbing albeit slowly. I continued the climb out and, eventually, made 2000 ft (with my hand on the handle :eek:). At that point, I re-evaluated my situation and decided I could make it back to the airport if things didn't get worse and decided to do so.

It was IMC but with a ceiling of about 800 ft so I shot the ILS back into my home airport and landed safely.

BUT:

At any time above 400 ft before I knew I had the landing secure, I was prepared and determined to pull. My assumption at all times was that something WOULD go wrong and I would have to pull.

In the event, I landed safely without pulling. No big drama and it doesn't make me a good pilot. But, for me, it said that my training worked. Because I really would have pulled. And would have been happy to be pilloried on here for doing so. :8

[Genghis the Engineer]

Ah, here we go.

Cirrus Reports Dramatic Accident Reduction - AVweb flash Article (http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Cirrus-Reports-Dramatic-Accident-Reduction221835-1.html)

After several years of tweaking training programs, Cirrus reports that the fatal accident rate for its aircraft has dropped dramatically in the past couple of years and is now measurably below the fatal accident rate for GA as a whole. At the Aero show in Friedrichshafen, Germany, the company’s Travis Klumb told assembled journalists that both the overall rate and the fatal accident rate has reached all-time lows for both the SR20 and SR22.

In this podcast, Klumb said as recently as 2004, the Cirrus fatal accident rate was about twice the industry average at 2.6/100,000 hours. In 2013, the Cirrus fatal rate had dropped to 1.01/100,000, below the industry average of 1.2. Klumb said 2014 is looking similarly promising, with initial data show a rate of .56/100,000.

So a running mean of 1.01/100k.hrs. Still about double the fatality rate of a DA42, and about half again that of a C182.

Full credit to the company for the effort put into bringing the fatal accident rate down. But, Cessna and Diamond didn't need to put that effort in apparently, and are still rather better. There are problems there, or Cirrus wouldn't be having to put anything like so much effort into trying to solve them.

This document is telling as well:

http://cirrusaircraft.com/static/img/CAPS_Guide.pdf

Page 13 recommends initial type training, then a 90 date check, and subsequently 2 "weekend" recurrency checks a year. That is basically airliner pilot standards being used to achieve in a relatively straightforward single, a 50% worse fatality rate than a C182 or about the same as a Columbia - both of those without that training.

There is definitely a problem there, even if Cirrus to their credit are putting massive efforts into solving it.

G

[mad_jock]

they also fiddle with the numbers G.

They exclude data from the real old **** kickers and training flights and only take some of the GA data.

Apparently what the rest of us consider the most dangerous flying ie flying close to the ground doing PFL's, 8 landings an hour etc. Is too safe to include in the data because it lowers the accident rates to much.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I did notice that they claim that the stats are worsened because of the number of long trips flown in the type - which should really have the opposite effect as en-route accidents in any aircraft type, are incredibly rare compared to those around the circuit / pattern.

However, I'm not going to pick a fight with anybody here over it - not least because somebody on this thread has very kindly just emailed me and offered a flight with him in his Cirrus and a few hours going over the training he's had on it. There is a certain appeal in actually having flown the aeroplane I'm talking about, and just as much in spending some quality time talking it through with somebody who knows the aeroplane well - and my opinions should mean a bit more then, and may well change (well probably not about the statistics, that's just maths, but I really would like to know more about the aeroplane close up).

G

[Mach Jump]

Genghis:

I've no issue with having a BRS - I've flown with both that and ejector seats. However, in all cases I'd make a rational decision based upon the circumstances - not an automatic handle pull, whatever I was in.

I have the same experience and am of exactly the same view.

http://cirrusaircraft.com/static/img/CAPS_Guide.pdf

I was determined to keep out of this one but here's another interesting quote from Page 5.

Any time a Cirrus pilot experiences a
loss of control or spin, the use of CAPS is required.


MJ:ok:

[mad_jock]

they are nice machines.

They fly like any other SEP.

But they require a reasonably in depth systems knowledge to be safe. Certainly to a much higher level than most SEP's in fact more so than some of the high power SET's

The one I was in the PIC if he had been my FO would have got a huge post flight bollocking for having there head down way to much fannying around with "systems" when you could see the sodding runway from 20-30 miles away. Screwing around with the AP while doing a visual approach for gawds sake.

Look out the :mad:ing window and land on the :mad: runway FFS.

[Big Pistons Forever]

However, I'm not going to pick a fight with anybody here over it - not least because somebody on this thread has very kindly just emailed me and offered a flight with him in his Cirrus and a few hours going over the training he's had on it. There is a certain appeal in actually having flown the aeroplane I'm talking about, and just as much in spending some quality time talking it through with somebody who knows the aeroplane well - and my opinions should mean a bit more then, and may well change (well probably not about the statistics, that's just maths, but I really would like to know more about the aeroplane close up).

G

I look for to your thoughts on the aircraft after you have some experience in it. :ok:

[ChickenHouse]

The discussion on pro/con BRS in a Cirrus is boring and will most probably never end, mainly due to the fact that everybody has an opinion and nobody is interested in getting hard figures together. They are there and we go with'em as is. So let's stop fighting.

I did fly Cirrus SR22 and I did fly Corvalis 400. Both are nice and fast, when flown within the envelope. In real world testing the Corvalis was more forgiving at the edges of the envelope, while the Cirrus gets hefty, when passing the envelope. If you have the standard overweight-outbalance situation common at the airports I usually fly, then the Cirrus feels more dangerous to me. I would guestimate that, if you change your mood and attitude towards less risk taking from the standard bush flying to precise handling and a less forgiving machine, you could get used to either plane. But this has nothing to do with BRS. I don't like the BRS by many reasons, one is it outsources the awareness for risk from pilots brain to a red pull button. Not everybody can cope with this.

[mad_jock]

As much as some would like the discussion to go that way.

I don't see it as a pro/con debate.

More of a why is one group of the system having to use them more than another.

[ChickenHouse]

More of a why is one group of the system having to use them more than another.

Could this be the next of the endless stories of "there are two kind of ..."? I think it is only human - if you chose two contradicting categories, most of the times you will have people behaving one or another. I would put this, following my US instructors world view, into the drawer pilots vs airmen.

Assume you have a day with predicted good weather. You arrive at the airport, do preflight checks, roll your machine out of the hangar and on final check you find the weather worse. One pilot might take off and rely on god's hole of the day, but an airmen may decide it is no good, pushes the plane back into the hangar and drives home to cuddle mom?

[dubster]

Thanks for the PM's. Lots of info gained.